I thought it was pretty cool that so called liberals could actually get the extremely republican candidates for the best Job in Texas to agree to a debate on their stage. Hmmm. Could that be because the liberals want to mock both candidates. Only time will tell. I'm betting because liberals tend to be a bit more open minded with just about everything.

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Skil -- you do realize that there are precious few liberals in the US -- a large number of centrists and moderates are flamed as liberal or socialist -- but that is really more a matter of the very right wingedness that exists today in this country.

OH MY! Imagine that, they sent the drop warning to the wrong address. Gosh, I wonder what wrong address that was? Perhaps the one the voter no longer lives at? After all you aren't supposed to re-register to vote when you more or anything like that! <hyperbola> Could this be because Republicans know to file change of address cards, because they want those dividend checks to arrive and re-register, but Democrats don't do that to escape the bill collector? </hyperbola>

OH MY! Imagine that, they sent the drop warning to the wrong address. Gosh, I wonder what wrong address that was? Perhaps the one the voter no longer lives at? After all you aren't supposed to re-register to vote when you more or anything like that! <hyperbola> Could this be because Republicans know to file change of address cards, because they want those dividend checks to arrive and re-register, but Democrats don't do that to escape the bill collector? </hyperbola>

painting with a broad brush are we? Registering to vote has nothing to do with a postal forwarding address. I didn't notify my previous precinct I was moving. I just moved and the county sent me a letter saying that they noticed I moved and would I like to update my voters card. I did so, I did it.

Not all dems are scoff laws and bill evaders. Not all republicans are complete jagoffs either. They are few and far between but they are out there.In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

painting with a broad brush are we? Registering to vote has nothing to do with a postal forwarding address. I didn't notify my previous precinct I was moving. I just moved and the county sent me a letter saying that they noticed I moved and would I like to update my voters card. I did so, I did it.

How did they find out? Perhaps they sent you something e.g. Sample Ballot, "Address Service Requested." Could this have been how they found out? Do you think they found out from property tax records? They had to find out somehow? Ever think about that?

This is a rich/poor issue, not a republican/democrat or white/minority issue. The poor don't have a lot of things to cross check and may be running from bill collectors. So the way the Registrar finds out is when the Post Office returns the sample ballot. It is right and proper for them to drop people the post office says "Moved, no forwarding address on file."

It might well be there is no correlation between rich/poor, republican/democrat, white/minority.

If the data bear out that, for example, there is no correlation between say rich/poor and white/minority (that is the same proportions apply regardless of race of ethnicity), then that would bear the non-correlation out.

For that matter if the data also suggest that the same proportions apply for Republican/Democrat and white/minority then that would bear out that there is no correlation there.

I'd submit that there is something of a correlation and there are partisan politics involved. There used to be a Supreme Court that recognized this as well. Not sure it exists today. I wonder if the Supreme Court today would reject a poll tax if the issue was established and presented to them.

This is a rich/poor issue, not a republican/democrat or white/minority issue. The poor don't have a lot of things to cross check and may be running from bill collectors. So the way the Registrar finds out is when the Post Office returns the sample ballot. It is right and proper for them to drop people the post office says "Moved, no forwarding address on file."

It might well be there is no correlation between rich/poor, republican/democrat, white/minority.

If the data bear out that, for example, there is no correlation between say rich/poor and white/minority (that is the same proportions apply regardless of race of ethnicity), then that would bear the non-correlation out.

For that matter if the data also suggest that the same proportions apply for Republican/Democrat and white/minority then that would bear out that there is no correlation there.

I'd submit that there is something of a correlation and there are partisan politics involved. There used to be a Supreme Court that recognized this as well. Not sure it exists today. I wonder if the Supreme Court today would reject a poll tax if the issue was established and presented to them.

This is a rich/poor issue, not a republican/democrat or white/minority issue. The poor don't have a lot of things to cross check and may be running from bill collectors. So the way the Registrar finds out is when the Post Office returns the sample ballot. It is right and proper for them to drop people the post office says "Moved, no forwarding address on file."

Without knowing the process by which these dropped persons come to the attention of officials to be removed, you should not posit, even if there is a 100% correlation, that the process is in some way cooked. You have to have access to the samples and run the statistical tests on the required data sets. It may look hinky but not be because some other relation is at work. I seriously doubt if this will ever come out as it is partisan politics at its finest that digs for examples it can twist to smear with to an uninformed press and then to the public. It is unfortunate when civil servants are forced to do the political bidding of their bosses.

I'll also note the press report said they were eligible, it did not say they were eligible at their registered address. Simple trick way to generate lots of bad publicity. It is unfortunate that journalistic ethics has gone to hell in pursuit of the almighty dollar, but you must read the press today with a sharp critical eye.

As to a direct poll tax required to vote, I suspect they wold find it unconstitutional and likely 9-0. Obfuscate it enough and, well it is hidden. Oh and remember a poll tax itself is fine, just the requirement it be paid to vote that isn't. [you do understand what a poll tax is?] In reality we get down to the question is it okay for a government to charge for a multi use identification document if one of the uses is to vote? Or does the government have to issue a free single use identification document to vote? I suspect this issue will be in front of SCOTUS in the near future.

Gary, as to the actual process -- fair point, that's not where large scale partisanship is likely to intrude. I think partisanship might well intrude at the state legislature though in defining rules. It cuts both ways of course, but these days, with the changing demographics, folks in power at the state level have some degree of self-interest in defining rules so that the can continue in power even if demographics suggest a change.

One might look at where various changes have been passed to detect, shall we say, a slight, dare I say it, partisanship at the rules level.

My own sense is that the changes are simply going to delay the demographic effect - perhaps giving the Republicans time to at least work on appearing to be a 'big tent' party rather than being a white men's club.

The problem here in Texas is the Gubberment is poor they don't particularly care to be fair or unbiased. Since the Neocon/Teaparty owns the Repugnican party it's pretty easy to see how this problem could be be fixed after the elections. However, Conservatives choose to wait until election time to brandish this weapon. Yes I said it. This has been a Conaservative tool to eliminate or reduce Democratic voters at the polls.

Did we forget that Bush (Jeb) eliminated 100,000 people from the voter rolls in 2000 just before the elections and to help out his brother sent another 10,000 names of Texans that may(?) have moved to Florida. They claim nobody was turned away that had a valid id. BS they had eliminated an elections board representative that DING DING DING was a Dem.

Clearly hitting low income and potentially Felon populations is an easy mark since they pretty much have no voice in society. Of course, revolutions have started from similar circumstances. In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

I see it as a distinction, not of race, but rather of those who want to earn their living and those who think they are entitled to a handout from those that do.

Most people would be happy to earn a living. Most are not content with "earning" subsistence while others wallow in wealth that is certainly not "earned" but compiled in the blood sweat and tears of others desperatly trying to earn a "living" only to be cast aside at the whim of those with the purse strings.
Janice

I see it as a distinction, not of race, but rather of those who want to earn their living and those who think they are entitled to a handout from those that do.

Most people would be happy to earn a living. Most are not content with "earning" subsistence while others wallow in wealth that is certainly not "earned" but compiled in the blood sweat and tears of others desperatly trying to earn a "living" only to be cast aside at the whim of those with the purse strings.

I think the distinction is a bit different. Those that when laid off first thought is to start sending out resume's and those whose first thought is the unemployment office. Likely the difference is thought process, "well that is life, better get on with it." vs "damn the man stuck it too me again, he'll hold me down so I better milk it for all I can."

This has been a Conaservative tool to eliminate or reduce Democratic voters at the polls.
...
Clearly hitting low income and potentially Felon populations is an easy mark since they pretty much have no voice in society.

Are they targeting them or are they targeting people who move around a lot? Maybe the two sets tend to overlap. Unless you have some hard evidence to back up your claim the intended target is members of one party, I'd suggest you take off the colored glasses.

Some questions, when was this law that you have to live at the address you are registered at passed? When was the law that you can't be a felon and vote passed? When did the law saying you had to be registered some number of days before the election pass? What margin did these pass by? Which parties voted for them? What Party was the Governor who signed them?

And I'll posit that when liberals control they refuse to purge the rolls because it increases Democratic voters at the polls.